Shooting in Las Vegas

I just read an interesting statistic (that I need to verify - but I will when I have more time). It isn't that the US has more crime than other countries, because they don't. It's that our crimes tend to be more lethal.

Also, I'm so over the "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." But you know who also doesn't shoot people? People without guns. Weird, I know.
 
AxelAnnie said:
Yep. It is the cause of the violence and glorification of it that need to be fixed.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing glorification of violence, are we? We're discussing access to guns and whether or not gun control/strict regulations prevents gun violence/crimes. I'd say that if the most recent numbers show that half of this year's guns used in Chicago violence came out of state then I think it's a pretty good bet that gun-related violence would drop significantly in Chicago if other states had regulations as tight or even tighter than Chicago/Illinois.


MacMadame said:
Since then I've read that that definition, while the most common and accepted, is not as universal as I thought. However, that doesn't matter because I actually think terrorism is a subset of mass murder. I do think you can compare them at least some of the time. Maybe not things like 9/11 but when a small group goes after a crowd, then, yes, these things are more alike than different. The only difference in that case is motive.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A terrorist usually has access to some kind of network and consequently, access to weapons is probably easier because there are more suppliers for weapons/the terrorist will be supplied with weapons by the terror cell/network.
On the other hand, someone like the Las Vegas guy doesn't have that network to fall back on. He has to do everything by himself, so I think that the more regulations there are, the more difficult it would be for someone like the Las Vegas guy to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Whereas it'll probably be always easier for terrorists, no matter how tight the regulations. If one supplier dries out, they'll just go to another and if they have to, they'll just change their planned method of killing.
Someone like the Las Vegas guy has financial restriction, is unlikely to have vetted supplier, so if forced to change a supplier he runs the risk of getting caught and if forced to change the method, he might not be able to due to skill. And if someone makes the bomb for him, there's again the trust issue and at least one other person involved who could become a liability.

I do believe that in the end, it doesn't matter to anyone affected whether or not it is called mass-murder or terrorist attack. It was a horrific event to witness and people died. It probably only matters to investigators in this case.
However, when we talk about gun control and draw comparisons, I think it matters because of the above.
 
Last edited:
PrincessLeppard said:
Also, I'm so over the "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people." But you know who also doesn't shoot people? People without guns. Weird, I know.
Click to expand...

People who don't have guns but want to kill, run over other people on trucks, use explosives, knives and chemicals.... or buy guns illegally.

You know what other object was used to intentionally kill the most civilians at once in the last 2 decades?
B747 and B757...:shuffle:
 
ballettmaus said:
Not necessarily. A terrorist usually has access to some kind of network and consequently, access to weapons is probably easier because there are more suppliers for weapons/the terrorist will be supplied with weapons by the terror cell/network.
Click to expand...
Most terrorist attacks in the US are performed by lone wolf types.
 
missing said:
The Oregonian has a chart on how Americans died in 2013, which seems to indicate that more people died of gunshots than of stabbings.
Click to expand...
This is not a trick question. But can you explain to me the significance of the chart in the article?
http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/10/gun_deaths_other_causes.html

What i see is 2/3-rd of gun deaths - cause: suicide. The key issue is "people wanting to take their own life". Gun is one option. There are many others.
My friend's wife recently committed suicide. She planned so it takes place on New Years eve. She applied for a gun permit, passed all tests, waited 2 weeks, received her gun, and then took her own life. If she did not get a gun, she would find some other creative method to spoil his New Year by dying.

Should we put bars on all windows above 3rd floors in case someone wants to jump? I know of certain measures taken to prevent people from jumping off Golden Gate bridge. Several found a way to jump off another section, or went on to jump off Bay Bridge....
 
Yes, people who want to kill themselves will find a way to do so. But it's a lot easier to kill oneself by various means than it is to kill someone else. Look at the number of homicides: 11,675 for gun deaths vs. 4,962 for non-gun deaths. Would those 11,675 people have been killed by other means if a gun had not been available?
 
Tinami Amori said:
France.... is in Europe. You want me to list more?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/europe/france-acid-attack-us-tourists/index.html

Italy....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-work-aquarium-horrific-assault-a7808556.html

Berlin....
http://www.dw.com/en/police-investigate-series-of-random-acid-attacks-on-women-in-berlin/a-37750838

Norway..
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/norway-muslim-cleric-sentenced.html

Sweden..
http://www.friatider.se/personer-f-rda-till-sjukhus-fick-v-tska-kastad-i-ansiktet

Belgium....
http://www.brusselstimes.com/rss-fe...-prosecutor-s-office-demands-20-year-sentence

Repeating from previous post:
Acid attacks become more common in Europe...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-growing-more-common-across-europe/675461001/


want more?
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm not sure what your point is. Don't have gun control in the US to stop mass shootings because assaults with acid happen in European countries. :confused:

Let's be clear - guns only have one purpose. To kill and maim.
 
ballettmaus said:
I don't think it's Chicago itself which needs "fixing"

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
Click to expand...

Every Chicago mayor for thirty years has been backed up by stats demonstrating that crime guns are coming mostly from the suburbs and Indiana, with much weaker gun laws. Same is true for DC: crime guns come from Virginia and further south.

Of course there are gangs and terrible pathologies in Chicago and other big cities, but to say strict gun laws don't work because bad guys in Chicago have guns is nonsense. Until there's a guarded border around the entire city.
 
My brother's response to the guns don't kill...

If guns don't kill, people kill people
Then why do we give people guns when we send them into war.
Shouldn't we arm them with people since it is people who kill, not guns.

Silly talk? Yeah I think your talk/claims are false.
 
Information from ABC News Investigation:

The assailant reported income from gambling of $5 Million in 2015.
He had been gambling successfully at the Mandalay Bay hotel in the days before the attack.

According to an interview on Australian TV; he had a "gun room" in his home and was a "fervent and absolute supporter" of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
 
The networks reported that before this attack in Las Vegas the gunman had researched possible sites in Boston and Chicago and a possible event (I can't remember the name of it- it's not something I had heard before).
 
allezfred said:
Let's be clear - guns only have one purpose. To kill and maim.
Click to expand...
These two are not always "purposes", "outcomes" yes, but not always "purposes". Guns also serve a purpose to protect and defend self and property.

A single mother with 2 young kids, who lives in a rural area and owns a gun, does not intend to "kill and maim", but she might do so unwillingly, if a burglar crawls through her window.
 
Tinami Amori said:
A single mother with 2 young kids, who lives in a rural area and owns a gun, does not intend to "kill and maim", but she might do so unwillingly, if a burglar crawls through her window.
Click to expand...
If her gun is that easily accessible it’s more likely one of her young children will find it, play with it and shoot themselves.
 
WildRose said:
If her gun is that easily accessible it’s more likely one of her young children will find it, play with it and shoot themselves.
Click to expand...
That's a far fetched assumption. Mother is likely to place a gun in a safe location. Gun permit test covers safety keeping rules.

Ok, let's say Mother is epitome of "gun safety", there are mothers like that out there... :D.

- what other objection do you have against her keeping a gun (away from children and safe)?

- if she lives in a remote rural area, with nearest police station 20-30 minutes away, and the burglar is cracking the window now, what do you propose for self defense?
 
Tinami Amori said:
That's a far fetched assumption. Mother is likely to place a gun in a safe location. Gun permit test covers safety keeping rules.

Ok, let's say Mother is epitome of "gun safety", there are mothers like that out there... :D.

- what other objection do you have against her keeping a gun (away from children and safe)?

- if she lives in a remote rural area, with nearest police station 20-30 minutes away, and the burglar is cracking the window now, what do you propose for self defense?
Click to expand...

LOL. When we lived in the country the last thing we ever had to worry about was burglars - we never even locked the doors. Dogs would have given us plenty of warning if anyone was snooping around, and scared off any city slicker who was dumb enough to try.
 
Tinami Amori said:
That's a far fetched assumption. Mother is likely to place a gun in a safe location. Gun permit test covers safety keeping rules.

Ok, let's say Mother is epitome of "gun safety", there are mothers like that out there... :D.

- what other objection do you have against her keeping a gun (away from children and safe)?

- if she lives in a remote rural area, with nearest police station 20-30 minutes away, and the burglar is cracking the window now, what do you propose for self defense?
Click to expand...

According to the guardian newspaper you are more likely in the States to be shot by a toddler than a terrorist.. apparently gun owners not very smart with their arsenal!
 
Tinami Amori said:
That's a far fetched assumption. Mother is likely to place a gun in a safe location. Gun permit test covers safety keeping rules.
Click to expand...

I've never understood how guns can be stored safely with kids around and still be accessible for protection. The guns in my house are stored separately from ammunition. The rifle is stored disassembled. Other guns have trigger locks. Anything less and I would be worried about the kids I have in my house. But stored like that they're useless for protection. That doesn't bother me because the thought of untrained people using guns for protection in stressful situations is terrifying to me.

Tinami Amori said:
A single mother with 2 young kids, who lives in a rural area and owns a gun, does not intend to "kill and maim", but she might do so unwillingly, if a burglar crawls through her window.
Click to expand...

Guns still have the purpose to kill and/or maim regardless if they're being used for hunting or protection or something more nefarious. It may be considered more justified if guns are used for protection but they're still used to kill/maim. Which is why it makes sense to control on some level who has access to them and what kinds are available. Guns are inherently dangerous. They'd be useless if they weren't.
 
Tinami Amori said:
These two are not always "purposes", "outcomes" yes, but not always "purposes". Guns also serve a purpose to protect and defend self and property.
Click to expand...
By killing and maiming.

Tinami Amori said:
- if she lives in a remote rural area, with nearest police station 20-30 minutes away, and the burglar is cracking the window now, what do you propose for self defense?
Click to expand...
Burglars do not like to break into homes when people are in there. It's very risky.

My suggestion is that people who are convinced they need a gun for defense learn the actual chance that they will be in that position. Most of them have allowed themselves to become overly paranoid about unlikely events as the number of people who live in situations where they would need to carry around a gun 24/7 or sleep with one by their bed is pretty small.
 
MacMadame said:
By killing and maiming.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between intending to "kill and maim" without provocation, and that happening in self defense when attacked.
You're not suggesting i hope that people who are subject to robbery don't have a right to defend themselves?

MacMadame said:
Burglars do not like to break into homes when people are in there. It's very risky.
Click to expand...
Good know now you think so. But do burglars know that? There are many burglaries which ended in murder and rape of the house owners, while owners at home.

MacMadame said:
My suggestion is that people who are convinced they need a gun for defense learn the actual chance that they will be in that position. Most of them have allowed themselves to become overly paranoid about unlikely events as the number of people who live in situations where they would need to carry around a gun 24/7 or sleep with one by their bed is pretty small.
Click to expand...

A small probability is still a probability, not a 0 probability. If there is even a small chance, one wants protection.
Besides, I can substitute some words in your statement, and insert "women who are overly paranoid about sexual harassment at work", "Blacks overly paranoid about Police brutality", etc.

made_in_canada said:
I've never understood how guns can be stored safely with kids around and still be accessible for protection. The guns in my house are stored separately from ammunition. The rifle is stored disassembled. Other guns have trigger locks. Anything less and I would be worried about the kids I have in my house. But stored like that they're useless for protection. That doesn't bother me because the thought of untrained people using guns for protection in stressful situations is terrifying to me.
Click to expand...

People should not be "untrained" on how to use guns. Too bad in North America they don't teach military training in school. Gun license must come with x-number of training at the local range with a programme developed according to safety standards and teach proper use of guns and ammunition.

Older kids should also be taught gun/weapon awareness if parents own such. Younger kids are not able to "reach certain places in the house" where a HAND-gun (not a rifle) is stored securely. It takes a minute to get a key or spin a dial to open a safe or a secure drawer placed far out of reach of children.

Discussion about "kids and guns in the house" can go on a long time. What about adults who do not have children, or children in the house? Or those who served in the military? or been familiar all their lives with guns and handling?

made_in_canada said:
Guns still have the purpose to kill and/or maim regardless if they're being used for hunting or protection or something more nefarious. It may be considered more justified if guns are used for protection but they're still used to kill/maim. Which is why it makes sense to control on some level who has access to them and what kinds are available. Guns are inherently dangerous. They'd be useless if they weren't.
Click to expand...
I've addressed "kill and maim" in my earlier reply to MM. Control on some level is correct. There is not objection to strict gun control laws, which address safety and exclude as many "inadequate" people as possible.

The discussion in USA is NOT only about gun control. There is a movement to ELIMINATE 2ND AMENDMENT and forbid any gun ownership. That is what i object to, elimination of 2nd Amendment.

4rkidz said:
According to the guardian newspaper you are more likely in the States to be shot by a toddler than a terrorist.. apparently gun owners not very smart with their arsenal!
Click to expand...
The Guardian/UK is a left-wing news paper. I don't trust one single word from them or their statistics. They operate like most Left, on the principles of "end justifies the means" and "if you repeat often enough something that's untrue people will accept it as truth". Like most mainstream media, which is left-leaning, they have VERY little scruples and bluntly lie to promote their agenda.

The article you're talking about is aimed to ridicule terrorist and migrant concerns, which are real. Guardian given no legitimate refs to where the data is obtained.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...muslim-terrorists-gun-violence-america-deaths

The only refs it gives is what's written in Washington Post, it is also a left-leaning newspaper.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.2631883c3519

Publication check source: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post
WildRose said:
LOL. When we lived in the country the last thing we ever had to worry about was burglars - we never even locked the doors. Dogs would have given us plenty of warning if anyone was snooping around, and scared off any city slicker who was dumb enough to try.
Click to expand...
That's great that you're safe!

Yet others live in remote/rural locations with different crime conditions and statistics. There is a difference between rural areas in Oregon and those in New Mexico/Texas closer to the border, just as one example.

There are quite a few "neutral media" information on the issue.
http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/...ut-that-cities-are-the-safest-places-to-live/

I also consider "remote upper middle class suburbs" located up on the hills away from city centres "remote area" and police stations are fairly far away. In Norther California for example, such areas are often targeted by home and car burglars.

Piedmont Hills/Montcalir for example, are located within 20-30 minute ride from crime ridden city of Oakland.

Here is the area of Piedmont Hills, many windy streets hard to navigate, takes police 20 minutes minimum.
https://images0.estately.net/2_40747596_1_1470078283_636x435.jpg
http://www.wplives.org/sn/images/havens-5.jpg

Here is Oakland.. one of the highest crime-rates in the country...
http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/1153239_1280x720.jpg
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/04/20/us/20BCMONITOR/20BCMONITOR-jumbo.jpg

Here is one of many articles...
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/27/piedmont-montclair-police-logs-nine-oakland-hills-burglaries/
https://patch.com/california/piedmont/piedmont-ave-crime-wave-5-days-8-robberies

If Police gets rid of bad guys and guarantees decent citizens safety 100% from robberies and attacks, we'll get rid of the guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

V
Shooting on the campus of Michigan State University.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Winnipeg
W
Sylvia
Major earthquake in Taiwan (and a 4.8 temblor in New Jersey)
Replies
4
Views
1K
Sylvia
Sylvia
Sylvia
Dabney Coleman, Actor from '9 to 5' and 'Tootsie,' who specialized in curmudgeons, has died at 92
Replies
2
Views
1K
Spikefan
Spikefan
olympic
Missing Men at the Olympics since 1984
2 3
Replies
88
Views
13K
seabm7
S
Sylvia
Laura Lepistö's autobiography published April 2024 in Finland
Replies
6
Views
5K
Frau Muller
Frau Muller
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information